SP - General Add Ways to Lose Renown - Limit the Number of Tier 5 and 6 Clans

[DrDragonlance]

I'm in year 52 or so of my game, and every Mercenary Clan is Clan Tier 6. The only Clans that are Tier 3 are Rebel Clans. I think that the game should add ways to lose Renown like was the case in Warband.

If you go 7 days without gaining Renown, you lose 1 Renown. Since Renown is basically how famous you are, you are either getting more famous or less.

If Clan doesn't have a Fief, they lose Renown.
Clan Tier 3, -1 Renown per day
Clan Tier 4, -2 Renown per day
Clan Tier 5, -4 Renown per day
Clan Tier 6, -8 Renown per day

And then Clan Tier 6 would have a small Renown cap like 200 points. That way dropping back to Clan Tier 5 is always close.

Whenever a Clan drops in Tier, they would start in the middle of the Renown for the lower Tier. That way Clans can't go up and down between Tiers everyday.

This would help in the late game when Fiefless Kingdoms stick around and cause havoc. They would eventually lose a lot of parties and be more manageable. This would also add a variance to game play as Clans could rise and fall in power.

 

[mangalore]

would maybe tie it more to events than constant decay as in loss of settlements, lost battles and maybe imprisonment drops you back down so that a tier 6 clan going from 4 to 0 fiefs naturally loses maybe two tiers and while they can still try to get it back, if they keep picking fights they lose they wittle down into insiginifcance and maybe dissolve.

The decay seems a bit like busywork and while unlikely someone may lose a tier without any actual drop in power. If someone is owning four cities it should not matter if a clan recently fought anyone or not, they may still be the biggest clan in the kíngdom.

 

[DrDragonlance]

Everyone can get Renown from more things than fighting.

Also, a simple mechanic is easier to implement for TW and manage for the player.

 

[VVL99]

I haven't fought for three years, and I'm already old, but my fighting skills are still on top, they should also fall.
===
At the legendary level, fame should fall less, legends are added about me.

 

[sh1ny4]

Something that I think could be implemented without changing too much of the game mechanics is losing renown upon being defeated in battle, but it needs to be balanced so that losing kingdoms don't get even more snowballed as they get weaker with fewer high tier clans

 

[DrDragonlance]

Something that I think could be implemented without changing too much of the game mechanics is losing renown upon being defeated in battle, but it needs to be balanced so that losing kingdoms don't get even more snowballed as they get weaker with fewer high tier clans

I thought of this, doing either half or a quarter of what the winning side gets, but I don't think it adds up to a significant amount of renown.

 

[DrDragonlance]

I went back and looked at the actual requirements for Clan Tier.

It would take a little over a month to lose Can Tier 6, the rest would take forever.

Increasing it so Clan Tier 5 loses 23 per day, Tier 4 loses 9 per day, and Tier 3 loses 3 per day would give each Clan over a year at each Tier.

This would result in a more reasonable rate of reduction.

 

[sh1ny4]

I went back and looked at the actual requirements for Clan Tier.

It would take a little over a month to lose Can Tier 6, the rest would take forever.

Increasing it so Clan Tier 5 loses 23 per day, Tier 4 loses 9 per day, and Tier 3 loses 3 per day would give each Clan over a year at each Tier.

This would result in a more reasonable rate of reduction.

Ideally every way that allows to get renown should reduce renown if failed.
Lose tournament ? lose renown.
Lose battle ? lose renown.
I don't know in which other way the lord get their renown but clearly the consequences haven't been thought out much

 

[DrDragonlance]

That would make leveling up Clan Tiers tedious if you lose Renown all the time.

That's why I favored something that was really only relevant towards endgame when too many Clans are Tier 5 and 6.

 

[sh1ny4]

That would make leveling up Clan Tiers tedious if you lose Renown all the time.

That's why I favored something that was really only relevant towards endgame when too many Clans are Tier 5 and 6.

the only tedious phase of leveling your clan is getting level 3, afterward it's easy, so easy almost every clan ends at level 6
maybe put a limit lie 'clans can't go under level 3' but I wouldn't be too worried.
I mean to go that low they would have to lose a lot of battles without winning any, which if it happens means that their kingdom is dying. So yeah they wouldn't be as powerful as other nation's clans

 

[DrDragonlance]

the only tedious phase of leveling your clan is getting level 3

If you add in a bunch of negatives for the early game, leveling your Clan will be tedious.

 

[sh1ny4]

If you add in a bunch of negatives for the early game, leveling your Clan will be tedious.

Which it should be, at least more than now. You should not be able to become noble starting from nothing in 4 hours of gameplay, and then have 200 hours of field battles and siege.
As many defaults warband had, it had a true sens of progression that bannerlord lacks.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Great suggestion!
I´m happy with the lack of settlement - parts. Let it apply to clans that are permanent members of a faction so it exludes players[that takes that route], revolts and mercs.

Spoiler: levels can allways be discussed....

The levels of daily loss can allways be discussed but I think it should quickly loose level 6(In a year maximum they are reduced to tier 5. Then in 2 more years they are down to tier 4. Then 4 more years to complete the fall and be tier 3! They still drop renown but stayes at tier 3 + 1 renown or something)

 

[kyle_usmc]

Agree, maybe they could just lock high clan tiers behind fief ownership and titles ie clan 6 is faction heads, and tier 5 has to hold a town.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I haven't fought for three years, and I'm already old, but my fighting skills are still on top, they should also fall.
===
At the legendary level, fame should fall less, legends are added about me.

I would be okay with every skill, no matter which one, degrading over time. 1 point per year in your teens and twenties, 1 a month in your 30s and 40s, and one a week 50s and above.

You retain all perks though.

 

[saittam]

Failing quests should cause a loose in renown.
No matter if it´s the player, a companion or the ai (ai needs a buff there).

Same with loosing a tournement. With perk you can gain 6, if you loose you loose 6.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Same with loosing a tournement. With perk you can gain 6, if you loose you loose 6.

No thank you, at least the way you outline it. It also makes that perk not make any sense. You're a braggard full of of hot air. Perks shouldn't damage you like that.

You also get renown for any clan member winning the tournament. So by you're system, if 3 of my companions participate, I lose 9 from them and then gain 6. And if you CANT lose any from them, then I'll just do a few bandit hideouts allowing them to level up their combat skills, and then just have them do the tournaments since they can only gain renown and not lose it like me. It's just a bad idea.

Tournaments just need to be more difficult and not get to the point to where you are winning them 95% of the time. I would also say that higher your clan tier, the less renown they should probably bring in. That would be more appropriate on that front.

As far as Clans moving up and down: Absolutely. A Tier 2 clan or higher without a castle should be losing renown, and a Tier 4 clan or higher without a Town should be losing renown (at a reduce rate if they have a castle). Perhaps even needing a Fief/village per Clan tier to maintain. So Tier 6 clans need a Town plus 5 villages/castles (and no Town has more then 4, so they would need two fortifications minimum to maintain). And Rulers hogging all the towns should have a hard time retaining any clans above Tier 3. This includes the player. This may cause a need to put a couple more castles on the map or add a couple more villages to places like Zeonica to ensure this could be done

 

[Dabos37]

I do agree with this suggestion. I find everything too easy in this game, and this does not only apply to renown. It is also too easy to keep 100 relationship with everyone. It is like if TW would be afraid of making angry some casual players who could complain about having to play strategically, and get punished if not.

 

[Dabos37]

I do agree with this suggestion. I find everything too easy in this game, and this does not only apply to renown. It is also too easy to keep 100 relationship with everyone. It is like if TW would be too afraid of making angry some casual players who could complain about having to play strategically, and get punished if not.

 

[GrayingGamer]

I agree that renown needs work. I think the avenues of renown gain should change depending on clan level. Things that get you renown early on shouldn't necessarily work as well or at all as your clan gets more famous.

For example, having a perk that gets me renown for operating caravans is fine, but that renown-gain should taper off and peak out well before I hit clan level 5 or 6.

Achieving the higher clan ranks should probably have some special requirements in addition to the steady accumulation of renown. Some sort of special accomplishment that sets you apart from the average nobles.

Regarding decay, I don't necessarily think I should be able to lose clan rank 6 once I have it, but perhaps there should be an additional layer on top of that that is more like a leaderboard - only the most fearsome commanders, or the most wealthy nobles, would maintain the highest ranking among the top clans. This leaderboard is in constant flux. There would be perks to being the best, but it would also paint a bit of a target on you - other nobles would want to defeat you in battle, or sack your ridiculously wealthy city in order to take its spoils.

Otherwise, criticism like this, "I find everything too easy in this game, and this does not only apply to renown. It is also too easy to keep 100 relationship with everyone," are valid, depending on the philosophy of the game:
Is the end-game supposed to be a more discrete experience that we prepare for and beat, and then we start over with a new game? This is at least somewhat how the campaign feels like it's intended to be. If so, then things like reputations and renown are basically fine, and the real problem is in other aspects of late game that make it too much of a cat-herding, siege-exploiting, slog.
Or is end-game supposed to be a much longer, almost indefinite process that feels like a real kingdom simulator, with more vague goals like "successfully manage as powerful/wealthy/large of a kingdom as possible," with the game designed to become increasingly challenging as you grow in power, with real checks and balances and risks. This is probably what I would prefer. If Taleworlds is going for the kingdom-simulator-sandbox experience, then lots of work needs to be done to keep it interesting, challenging, and immersive (like the early game is).

(It is worth noting that there is a reset currently in game for all those notables you have 100 relations with - they eventually die. Like many late-game features, though, the dynasty system needs tuning - the timing is just too slow to really impact a typical game right now)